The statements in this section merely provide background information related to the present disclosure, and do not attempt to reflect all prior art or practices in the literature.
The history of vehicles is largely a history of modifications based on prior versions and consumer/owner/operator preferences. At times, as it is in other fields, development is driven by enthusiasts modifying and experimenting. This requires often appreciable expenditures of capital and labour in a partially wasteful manner; undoing prior work, throwing away parts and consumables, etc. in order to achieve what could in many cases be carried out more expediently and cost effectively by the factory. Accordingly, improved feedback and deal-making is needed at the business and consumer level, to enable reduced waste, a higher standard of living, and a less-polluted environment. As will be seen, the two aspects of this invention do that in a novel and elegant manner.
The first problem addressed is that of persuading the vehicle producers that it is worth their while not to just engineer the vehicles specifically to function adequately in the hands of a very unskilled operator, ones with no significant understanding of vehicle dynamics or ability to manage the systems if they are allowed to deviate from factory-set conditions chosen for a minimum of performance under all conditions regardless of what the operator does.
The engineering of the Ford Model T provides an illustrative example. The engine had a severely restricted air intake which lengthened the engine longevity substantially; Without the restriction, horsepower purportedly increased from 22 to 70 hp. As is the general practice today, a minimum longevity came first in engineering. This meant that those wishing a faster vehicle had to be prepared to buy or expend labour on the car and in general, also buy more parts. They could opt to decline from that pursuit, or buy a competitor's car.
Had Ford offered the car with a restrictor-removing switch which when pressed enabled 70 hp, many model Ts would have had shorter engine lives, eventually affecting sales negatively assuming most people wanted normal engine longevity in a car. Perhaps some customers also had friends or relatives who used the feature unbeknownst to the owner, leaving him or her surprised with a prematurely failed engine. Perhaps in mountainous terrain, using the feature only above 15000 feet altitude, no appreciable extra engine wear would result. However, if left on, perhaps accidentally, at lower altitudes, engine life could be compromised. This is an example of an advanced feature used incorrectly in a products that is sold without such a consumer override interface; a customer can be initially drawn to the feature set or performance figures, then use them incorrectly, and rapidly get themselves into trouble and blame the product. Had the hypothetical restrictor-remover feature been activated through the proposed interface, additional sales could have been expected from enthusiasts seeing that it is easier and cheaper to buy the model T mass-produced with the feature, than to buy a competitor's car and modify it. Further sales would result from people who can suddenly now afford the now-cheaper performance solution they desired.
A major part of the problem addressed is that energy conservation is most directly in the hands of the operators, with results varying in some cases by more than a factor of 3 in energy consumption by the same vehicle under the same driving conditions. When the vehicle is modified intelligently by those willing to accept any ‘downsides’, emissions can be reduced while the efficiency range increases even more. Some fraction of the lower-performing operators would be interested if they were convinced that the energy cost savings could be for them so high, and are capable of being trained to do so. The results, across millions of drivers, would be significant, and do not require a significant engineering effort or capital investment.
Improvements in instrumentation are important since they can help operators to recognize where efficiency gains might be made. In fact, one could suggest that drivers are in the best place to effectively utilize instrumentation-driven improvements, because they have the vehicle, a realistic environment, and are willing to drive and in many cases experiment without getting paid beyond energy consumption savings.
Existing fuel and energy consumption displays produce time lags and other artifacts resulting from use of crude algorithms. These lags are significant enough to demand that an experimenting driver drive at a constant speed over a sustained slope and road surface quality for inconvenient and appreciable time in order to allow the common fuel-time-speed integration gauge to suggest an average energy consumption (e.g. mpg) achieved.
Traffic and road conditions often change during such a test, hence diluting the test effectiveness. A single other driver in the way, or threatening to be in the way, or a bump in the road sufficient to cause a finely held gas pedal in a vehicle with an automatic transmission to move sufficiently to result in a gear change; Such types of disturbance events will ruin what amounts to a long measurement experiment effort. Minor, seemingly negligible disturbances, can also occur, and without direct and immediate feedback from the efficiency gauge, incorrect conclusions can be reached which result in wasted effort, frustration, and excess energy purchases.
Hence an interface and feature modification improvement is desired which enhances the familiar energy usage gauge into one which more accurately correlates and reflects the immediate effects of driving technique.